Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13015 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this proposed rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this rulemaking 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01, 

Rev. 1, associated implementing 

instructions, and Environmental 

Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 

(series), which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f). The 

Coast Guard has determined that this 

action is one of a category of actions that 

do not individually or cumulatively 

have a significant effect on the human 

environment. This proposed rule 

promulgates the operating regulations or 

procedures for drawbridges. Normally 

such actions are categorically excluded 

from further review, under paragraph 

L49, of chapter 3, table 3–1 of the U.S. 

Coast Guard Environmental Planning 

Implementation Procedures. 

Neither a Record of Environmental 

Consideration nor a Memorandum for 

the Record are required for this 

rulemaking. We seek any comments or 

information that may lead to the 

discovery of a significant environmental 

impact from this proposed rule. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

We encourage you to submit 

comments through the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to 

https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2022–0854 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

To view documents mentioned in this 

proposed rule as being available in the 

docket, find the docket as described in 

the previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. We review all 

comments received, but we will only 

post comments that address the topic of 

the proposed rule. We may choose not 

to post off-topic, inappropriate, or 

duplicate comments that we receive. 

Additionally, if you go to the online 

docket and sign up for email alerts, you 

will be notified when comments are 

posted, when a final rule is published, 

and of any posting or updates to the 

docket. 

We accept anonymous comments. 

Comments we post to https://

www.regulations.gov will include any 

personal information you have 

provided. For more about privacy and 

submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision 

No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Revise § 117.799(e) to read as 

follows: 

§ 117.799 Long Island, New York Inland 

Waterway from East Rockaway Inlet to 

Shinnecock Canal. 

* * * * * 

(e) The draw of the Atlantic Beach 

Bridge across Reynolds Channel, mile 

0.4, shall operate as follows: 

(1) From October 1 through May 14 

the draw shall open on signal from 8 

a.m. to midnight. 

(2) From midnight to 8 a.m. yearround, the draw shall open on signal if 

at least eight (8) hours of notice is given 

by calling the Bridge Tower at 516–239– 

1821. 

(3) From May 15 through September 

30, the bridge will open on signal except 

from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays and 

from 11 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Saturdays, 

Sundays, Memorial Day, Independence 

Day, and Labor Day when the bridge 

will open on the hour and half-hour. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 14, 2024. 

J.W. Mauger, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03455 Filed 2–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2024–0157] 

RIN 1625–AA87 

Security Zone; Port Valdez and Valdez 

Narrows, Valdez, AK 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The current Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline (TAPS) Valdez Terminal 

complex (Terminal) security zone 

encompasses a waterside portion and 

2000 yards inland, which includes the 

shoreside portion of the terminal and 

adjacent land. The Coast Guard is 

proposing to amend the TAPS Terminal 

security zone to exclude the land 

portion from the security zone. The 

Coast Guard has never exercised any 

legal authority, nor has it enforced 

regulations within the inland portion of 

the security zone. We invite your 

comments on this proposed rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must be received by the Coast Guard on 

or before March 22, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2024–0157 using the Federal DecisionVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:01 Feb 20, 2024 Jkt 262001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\21FEP1.SGM 21FEP1

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13016 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

Making Portal at https://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

further instructions on submitting 

comments. This notice of proposed 

rulemaking with its plain-language, 100- 

word-or-less proposed rule summary 

will be available in this same docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant 

Junior Grade Abigail Ferrara, Marine 

Safety Unit Valdez, U.S. Coast Guard. 

Telephone 907–835–7209, email 

Abigail.C.Ferrara@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

COTP Captain of the Port Prince William 

Sound 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

TAPS Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal 

Basis 

In response to the terrorist attacks on 

September 11, 2001, the Coast Guard 

instituted several temporary security 

zones in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

(TAPS) Terminal and Port Valdez areas. 

Between 2002 and 2004, Coast Guard 

published several proposed and 

supplemental proposed rulemakings to 

establish security zones in the area. This 

culminated with a final rule (71 FR 

2152) published on January 13, 2006, 

which established the current 

permanent security zones in 33 CFR 

165.1710. 

The current TAPS Terminal security 

zone encompasses a waterside portion 

and 2000 yards inland, which includes 

the shoreside portion of the terminal 

and adjacent land. The Coast Guard has 

never exercised any legal authority, nor 

has it enforced regulations within the 

inland portion of the security zone. The 

Captain of the Port Prince William 

Sound (COTP) determined that the 

current practice of non-enforcement 

within the inland portion of the security 

zone could create confusion for future 

stakeholders and the public. It would be 

an arbitrary and unreasonable burden 

upon the facility and industry 

employees who have freely entered the 

inland portion without COTP 

permission for decades if a COTP were 

to begin enforcing their authority over 

the inland portion of the security zone 

in the future. 

The Coast Guard is proposing this 

rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 

70051 and 70124. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The COTP is proposing to amend the 

current security zone found in 33 CFR 

165.1710(a)(1) to excise the 2000-yard 

inland portion of the zone. This would 

result in the security zone 

encompassing only the water up to the 

shoreline. The regulatory text we are 

proposing appears at the end of this 

document. 

IV. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This NPRM has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as 

amended by Executive Order 14094 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Accordingly, the NPRM has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB). 

This regulatory action determination 

is based on the size and location of the 

current waterside portion security zone 

remaining the same. Moreover, the 

landside portion of the facility has had 

other security regulations in place for 

roughly two decades. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this proposed rule would not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This regulatory change would not 

affect any small entities, as the COTP 

does not enforce the requirements for 

the landside portion of the security 

zone, and the waterside security zone 

coordinates will remain unchanged. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this proposed rule would have 

a significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rulemaking would economically 

affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

proposed rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please call or email the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this proposed rule or any policy or 

action of the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would not call for 

a new collection of information under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism), if it has a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) because it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

If you believe this proposed rule has 

implications for federalism or Indian 

tribes, please call or email the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 21, 2024 / Proposed Rules 13017 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

potential effects of this proposed rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Directive 023–01, Rev. 1, 

associated implementing instructions, 

and Environmental Planning 

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves excising the 2000-yard 

inland portion TAPS Terminal security 

zone. Normally such actions are 

categorically excluded from further 

review under paragraph L60(b) of 

Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction 

Manual 023–01–001–01, Rev. 1. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

V. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We view public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision-Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2024–0157 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If you cannot submit 

your material by using https://

www.regulations.gov, call or email the 

person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this proposed rule 

for alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. Also, if you click 

on the Dockets tab and then the 

proposed rule, you should see a 

‘‘Subscribe’’ option for email alerts. The 

option will notify you when comments 

are posted, or a final rule is published. 

We review all comments received, but 

we will only post comments that 

address the topic of the proposed rule. 

We may choose not to post off-topic, 

inappropriate, or duplicate comments 

that we receive. 

Personal information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions to the docket in 

response to this document, see DHS’s 

eRulemaking System of Records notice 

(85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing 

to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Revise § 165.1710(a)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.1710 Port Valdez and Valdez 

Narrows, Valdez, Alaska—security zones. 

(a) * * * 

(1) Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) 

Valdez Terminal complex (Terminal), 

Valdez, Alaska and TAPS tank vessels. 

All waters enclosed within a line 

beginning on the southern shoreline of 

Port Valdez at 61°05′03.6′′ N, 146°25′42′′ 

W; thence northerly to yellow buoy at 

61°06′00′′ N, 146°25′42′′ W; thence east 

to the yellow buoy at 61°06′00′′ N, 

146°21′30′′ W; thence south to 61°05′06′′ 

N, 146°21′30′′ W; thence west along the 

shoreline to the beginning point. 

* * * * * 

Dated: February 14, 2024. 

S.K. Rousseau, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 

the Port Prince William Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2024–03486 Filed 2–20–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 42 

[Docket No. PTO–P–2023–0058] 

RIN 0651–AD75 

Expanding Opportunities To Appear 

Before the Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Department of 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: As part of its initiatives to 

expand access to practice before the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

(USPTO or Office), the USPTO proposes 

to amend the rules regarding admission 

to practice before the Patent Trial and 

Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) in 

proceedings under the Leahy-Smith 

America Invents Act (AIA proceedings) 

to give parties the option to designate 

non-registered practitioners who are 

recognized pro hac vice (i.e., granted 

recognition in a specific PTAB 

proceeding) as lead counsel; excuse 

parties from the requirement to 

designate back-up counsel upon a 

showing of good cause such as a lack of 

resources to hire two counsel; establish 

a streamlined alternative procedure for 

recognizing counsel pro hac vice that is 

available when counsel has previously 

been recognized pro hac vice in a 

different PTAB proceeding; and clarify 

that those recognized pro hac vice have 

a duty to inform the Board of 

subsequent events that render 

inaccurate or incomplete 

representations they made to obtain pro 

hac vice recognition. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before May 21, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of government 

efficiency, comments must be submitted 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at www.regulations.gov. To submit 

comments via the portal, one should 

enter docket number PTO–P–2023–0058 

on the homepage and select ‘‘search.’’ 

The site will provide search results 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS